<p>GA2012Mom, Sure. The same can be said for Asians…they know discrimination when they see it.</p>
<p>poetgrl, simple: i would be totally transparent in all aspects of the admissions process and let meritocracy rule. I would ban nebulous practices that miraculously lauds URMs for achievements that is considered ordinary for everyone else. The lack of transparency in the admissions process is precisely the cover used as a shield to justify current discriminatory practices.</p>
<p>What would your criteria be, though?</p>
<p>What would you use as a measurement? for meritocracy? how would you personally score that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Come on. how long does it take to define a “no brainer” candidate for Harvard?</p>
<p>Because as Xiggi said, no application is ever equal. One has more to bring to the table or the mission statement of the college than the other. Your 2300 does not trump all. Or it does…just not at Harvard.</p>
<p>I agree with Pizzagirl that URM or ORM or anyone, for that matter are not some monolithic group. S’s roommate at Harvard is Chinese and from an extremely poor background…He told us that his SATs weren’t tippy top, either! S has found few students that fit these stereotypes. Go figure!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps you should refer to the words that were actually written and not form an (erroneous) opinion on hearsay and wrongly attributed non-sense. Here is what I wrote. I suggest to look up the post for the entire context. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>poetgrl, does the criteria even matter that much? The top candidates will adjust accordingly to whatever criteria that is transparently published. If Harvard, all of a sudden, wanted lots of farmers from Montana…you might see lots of Asians in Montana farming. Let the process be transparent so that Asians aren’t always shooting blindly at a moving target. </p>
<p>poetgrl was going to respond but since you are being so obtuse about this, I will pass and let you think about it on your own.</p>
<p>GAMom How much additional benefit to SAT and GPA should a URM get compared to Asians and Whites? Do Blacks who play tennis get an extra bonus point but Asians should be given negative points? What about athletes should Blacks get negative points for playing football or basketball and Asians give extra points for being football and basketball players?</p>
<p>What you are asking is for discrimination that benefits you and or your family and you seem not to care about the affects to others who have to be discriminated.</p>
<p>but they do want qualified farmers from montana, @mavant.</p>
<p>more than they want another kid from Stuveysant or New Trier.</p>
<p>poetgrl, citation? As in Asian farmer from Montana are wanted at Harvard…please provide.</p>
<p>Hey guys, I was not asked, but I am happy to say what my ideal Harvard recruitment criteria would be. It would start with having an URM quota, say 15 pct (to match the US population divided by two as URMs will come from out of quota as well) which cannot be filled with international students nor students with middle class or above SES (let’s say this would mean family income in 33rd percentile or less). Once that is full, then legacies, developmental students, athletes, and international full pay students will come in, which I think is right now running at around 30 pct total. So, 45 pct of the seats have already been allocated and here Harvard can use whatever methodology they choose to use. We have 55 pct left, of which I would give another 15 pct to low SES groups, say median or below. Now the remaining 40 pct seats will be made race blind, with all racial identification removed, and Harvard will be able to continue to use whatever process they use today but can’t use race by any means. Let the chips fall where they may after that.</p>
<p>Rough idea, thoughts and feedback most welcome.</p>
<p>Bogibogi, thanks for the link. Harvard is changing in many ways and imo great ways.</p>
<p>Mavant, I think that the acceptance of the verdict of OJ --and the Ferguson shooting-- are poor parallels to the upcoming case against Harvard. But the point remains the same: I, for one, will be happy to align my opinions on the subject according to the findings of people who are expected to be able to judge the facts and objective. I am not sure what else could be expected from someone who has --thus far-- remained convinced that the case are really weak. </p>
<p>It is really not that hard to accept facts over opinions and idle rhetoric. </p>
<p>Would love to enter into this conversation but my kid is too busy moving to Montana to take up that farming business thing… 
</p>
<p>I like that User. I would fully endorse that at my own personal Harvard. B-) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All other factors are rarely similar. For instance, I wonder if part of the reason for the lower rates of admission among Asian applicants than might be expected based solely on hard stats has to do with the overrepresentation of Asian applicants in certain fields such as mathematics and their underrepresentation in others such as philosophy or sociology. When I look at the “chance me” threads I see a ton of Asian kids who have won math or science competitions and a dearth of Asian poets. No school wants to admit an entire department of kids who look the same or come from the same place. That’s why highly competitive schools have different admit rates for men and women and accept a larger percentage of the applicants from Nebraska than they do from Massachusetts.</p>
<p>Yes, it’s a generalization, but one with which I’m comfortable.</p>
<p>OMG mavant, good lord…Harvard doesn’t want asian farmers from Montana just because!!! They want the Asian farmer from Montana BECAUSE that’s who they are…not a forced or manufactured facsimile. Why should things be transparent so kids can adjust to them? Let the kid be a kid and do what they want to…not what they have to because their parents want them to go to Harvard. Besides, Ted Turner is not going to sell his Montana Land so thousands of Harvard wanna’s want to move there. 
</p>
<p>xiggi, so you consider the judgement in a court case as “fact?” Not me. Lawyers don’t always speak the truth and law proceedings aren’t always void of half-truths and lies. Juries make mistakes as do judges.</p>
<p>The only way to get rid of discriminatory practices is to eliminate discriminatory practices themselves, not hide behind legal rhetoric and technicalities.</p>
<p>@Mavant: “S’s roommate at Harvard is Chinese and from an extremely poor background…He told us that his SATs weren’t tippy top, either! S has found few students that fit these stereotypes.” Does this bother you as much as a lower SAT URM at Harvard?</p>
<p>@Xiggi: thanks for the quote–I looked, but couldn’t find it. The context helps–User misquoted you. Retraction accepted, User.</p>
<p>SouthernHope I wish I knew that was favored EC. I guess helping tutor kids, start a charity, volunteer at the food bank, buy broken bikes with one’s own money and fix them to donate to needy kids is just not enough. Win model building awards, have art works recognized etc.</p>